Siddharth Tiwary Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed byRAVI RAVISHANKAR SHANKARMANDAVI MANDAVI Date: 2025.05.08 10:45:29 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:20469

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 707 of 2023

¶7

1 - Siddharth Tiwary S/o Late Shri Major Vinod Kumar Tiwari (Retd.) Aged About 37 Years R/o Shri Sai Nilayam, Near Ameri Railway Crossing, Ameri Road, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector Cum Arms Licensing Authority Office Of Collector, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Commissioner Cum Appellate Authority Arms License Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Under Secretary Ministry Of Home, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

2

05/05/2025

Heard Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State/respondent/s.

¶20

By this petition the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s:

¶21

“10.1. Set aside the order dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), and/

¶22

10.2. Issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to issue the arms license in favour of the petitioner, and/or

¶23

10.3. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in circumstance of this case.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at present is working in Multinational Company at Pune as a Senior Consultant. In addition he is also in the process of setting up a Solar Power Plant at Tahsil-Ghansor, District Seoni (M.P.), under the aegis of PMKUSUM component i.e. a Scheme for farmers. In addition after the demise of his parents, the petitioner also needs to have a constant vigil over his ancestral property located at village-Chandanpura, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal (M.P.), in Tahsil Ujjain and City Ujjain (M.P.) and in village Bahuara, Tahsil Bairiya, District Baliya (U.P.). The above mentioned activities require frequent travel by road in personal vehicles for reasons of time management and last mile connectivity, this involves traveling

¶25

3

¶26

through multiple states and meeting with potential investors, suppliers and property dealers. Further, the petitioner, because of the aforesaid contingencies, and the increasing criminal activities, both on road as well as that of unauthorized occupation of land, has a constant fear of life and limb. Thus, the petitioner while exercising its fundamental rights, made an application for consideration of granting an arms license in his favour to the learned Respondent no.2. On contrary to the settled judicial precedent and rules of administrative law, the application was not decided within the stipulated time frame. It goes without saying that the subject matter of the present petition is a continuing cause of action, as the frequency of travel of the petitioner is increasing with time and so is increasing the risk of his life and limb, as such, the petitioner, in discharge of his duties as a responsible citizen, was constantly following up his application, in expectation of a timely disposal, with his reminders to the appropriate authorities. He further submits that without assigning any reason, without passing any speaking order, vide letter dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P/1), the petitioners application for grant of arms license dated 02.02.2022 has been rejected by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, whereas, the recommendations has been made by the Commissioner, Bilaspur, as such requested that the impugned letter dated 08.12.2022 may be quashed.

¶27

4

¶28

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that subject to due verification and scrutiny of the claim of the petitioner, appropriate steps shall be taken at the earliest within a short period.

¶29

Given the statement made by the learned State counsel, as further considering the fact that a recommendation has been made by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the Additional Secretary, Home Department, Chhattisgarh to pass a speaking order in respect of grant of arms license to the petitioner in accordance with the Arms Act 1959, within an outer limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶30

With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶33

Ravi Mandavi

Siddharth Tiwary v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Tiwary v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyam Pal Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manharan Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Kansal Udyog Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwarlal Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukaro Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh